Ministry of Justice

The Pathfinder model is currently operating in six family court areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas will start the model on 11 November in the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

Following the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendation to expand Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs – the UK equivalent of “problem solving courts”), the Ministry of Justice launched an Expression of Interest process to identify new areas for delivery. This process has now closed, and successful applicants are expected to be announced in the coming months. Earlier this year, the Department announced that a new women’s ISC will launch at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court, with implementation planned within the next year. Further expansion remains subject to funding allocations.

The Ministry of Justice works closely with NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) to ensure that all offenders who need it have access to high-quality mental health, alcohol and substance misuse treatment. Responsibility for commissioning and delivery of substance misuse treatment in the community lies with Local Authorities. DHSC has made a targeted investment to support those referred by the criminal justice system, including funding 575 drug and alcohol workers with criminal justice specialisms who work closely with prisons, probation and in courts as well as the police to improve access to and quality of treatment. At a local level, Health and Justice Partnership Coordinators have been recruited across all probation regions in England and Wales to strengthen operational links between treatment providers and probation, bolstering support for those with Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and Alcohol Treatment Requirements. Our ongoing partnership with NHS England has also achieved an increase in the number of Mental Health Treatment Requirements with the number sentenced now more than five times higher than it was a decade ago, up from 960 in 2014 to 4,880 in 2024.

We remain committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of interventions which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes, but is not limited to, education, employment and accommodation, alongside health services.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly statistics on proven reoffending of offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution or reprimand. These include reoffending rates by offender demographics, accommodation and employment status.

Also, the Ministry of Justice’s recent Reducing Reoffending Evidence Synthesis (2025) provides a comprehensive overview of what works to reduce reoffending. The report identifies a range of factors that influence the likelihood of reoffending. This includes static factors (e.g., age, gender, criminal history) which cannot change and are among the strongest predictors of reoffending, and dynamic factors (e.g., substance misuse, employment status, family relationships) which can be addressed to reduce an individual’s risk of reoffending.

The evidence also shows that offender needs frequently overlap. Another Ministry of Justice report considered the identified needs of offenders serving both custodial sentences and community orders. This analysis included findings on multiple overlapping needs.

At present, there are no plans to commission a specific analysis of reoffending patterns among people experiencing multiple disadvantage.

Reoffending in England and Wales is estimated to cost taxpayers £22.7 billion per year (adjusted to 24/25 prices). That is why we are investing in interventions that help individuals move away from crime, including employment, accommodation and substance misuse treatment services.

Currently, we have not produced an estimate of the potential cost savings to the criminal justice system from a one per cent reduction in reoffending among repeat offenders.

The requested information is not centrally held.

We are committed to diverting vulnerable offenders with mental health and substance misuse needs away from prison or out of the criminal justice system altogether, where appropriate.

Many people who have committed low-level offences can be managed more effectively in the community, with the right treatment and support to tackle the health-related causes of their offending behaviour, than on short custodial sentences. In addition to addressing issues around substance misuse and mental health, community sentence treatment requirements can also help to improve social needs around housing, benefits and primary care for example.

In September 2024, the Institute for Public Safety Crime and Justice published the Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Multisite Report July 2020 to June 2024 with a focus on Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs). Overall, the results presented in this report showed that MHTR interventions had a statistically significant benefit in terms of mental distress, anxiety and depression. 76% of service users experienced a positive reliable change in terms of global distress, 60% experienced positive reliable change in terms of anxiety and 53% experienced a positive reliable change in terms of depression. Overall, for those who completed a MHTR, 82% experienced a positive reliable change in at least one of the psychometrics measured.

We are piloting Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), diverting some offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences to enhanced community sentences aimed at addressing multiple needs linked to their offending. The process evaluation interim report found that some participants on ISCs reported reduced substance misuse, improved mental wellbeing and self-esteem, and improved relationships with their families.

The Pathfinder model is currently operating in six Designated Family Judge areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas - the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire - will start the model on 11 November. Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

This Government is delivering a package of reform to ensure that children and victims of domestic abuse continue to be safeguarded and supported in family court proceedings, Pathfinder is central to this. Monitoring metrics are positive and the feedback from operational teams and external stakeholders has identified a range of benefits. A process evaluation and initial financial analysis of the pilot was published in March 2025. Research participants involved in the evaluation reported that the Child Impact Report adopted in the pilots improved child engagement and the model provided better support for victims of domestic abuse. Management information from the two initial pilot court areas showed cases in the model were resolved 11 weeks quicker and the open caseload reduced by 50%.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

The Pathfinder programme is currently operating in six Designated Family Judge areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas - the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire - will start the model on 11 November.

Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

The Government has provided legal and workability advice to the Sponsors across the entire Bill.

Where the Government has provided advice to the Sponsors on specific amendments, Ministers have referred to this within their remarks at Committee and Report Stage in the House of Commons. Parliamentary Counsel has provided the technical drafting for the amendments tabled by the Sponsors.

All advice provided to the Sponsor in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been to ensure the coherence of the statute book, and to help ensure the Bill is workable. The Government has remained neutral on the matter of assisted dying, and will continue to take this approach through the Bill’s passage in the House of Lords.

The information requested is provided below.

Table 1: Number of female prisoners on remand and sentenced on 30 September 2025

Table 2: Number of female prisoners serving determinate sentences broken down by sentence length on 30 September 2025(1)

Notes

1. The figures in this table exclude recalled prisoners, as well as non-criminal prisoners and those serving indeterminate sentences.

2. In order to provide complete data, this figure includes a prisoner serving more than 12 weeks but less than 3 months.

The information requested is provided below.

Table 1: Number of female prisoners on remand and sentenced on 30 September 2025

Table 2: Number of female prisoners serving determinate sentences broken down by sentence length on 30 September 2025(1)

Notes

1. The figures in this table exclude recalled prisoners, as well as non-criminal prisoners and those serving indeterminate sentences.

2. In order to provide complete data, this figure includes a prisoner serving more than 12 weeks but less than 3 months.

The Ministry of Justice continues to develop its understanding of how non-court processes support families to resolve post-separation issues, such as child arrangements.

Evidence from the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme suggests that these approaches can help families reach agreement without needing to go to court. Analysis of the first 7,200 cases completed under the scheme shows that 69% of participants reached a whole or partial agreement and did not need to go to court to resolve their issues. Since its launch, the scheme has supported over 49,000 families, and the Government has committed to continue funding it until at least March 2026.

The Government believes that helping parents reach agreement outside of court, including through mediation, reduces conflict and benefits children’s wellbeing, and continues to assess these approaches.

The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.

Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.

The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.

Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report.

We are carefully considering the recommendations and will publish a full response by the end of the year.

The Parole Board plays a vital role in public protection. It can only direct release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender must remain in custody. To ensure each case can receive thorough scrutiny, once a case is referred to the Board there is no time limit in which a decision must be made. Each case is considered individually and the proceedings are managed according to the specific circumstances involved.

We recognise the uncertainty and distress that parole hearings will cause for victims. Prolonged reviews are regrettable but the nature of parole proceedings means that the Board’s panel will often need to direct additional information or specialist reports to complete their risk assessment and this must be the priority for public protection reasons.

Eligible victims registered with the Victim Contact Scheme are kept up to date during the parole review by dedicated Victim Liaison Officers.

The Parole Board plays a vital role in public protection. It can only direct release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender must remain in custody. To ensure each case can receive thorough scrutiny, once a case is referred to the Board there is no time limit in which a decision must be made. Each case is considered individually and the proceedings are managed according to the specific circumstances involved.

We recognise the uncertainty and distress that parole hearings will cause for victims. Prolonged reviews are regrettable but the nature of parole proceedings means that the Board’s panel will often need to direct additional information or specialist reports to complete their risk assessment and this must be the priority for public protection reasons.

Eligible victims registered with the Victim Contact Scheme are kept up to date during the parole review by dedicated Victim Liaison Officers.

We have interpreted the reference to an ‘18-month review cycle’ to be the frequency that cases are referred to the Parole Board and the review cycle varies depending on the type of sentence being served. Standard Determinate Sentence prisoners who have been recalled are referred to the Board within 28 days of their recall and then every 12 months. Indeterminate sentence prisoners must have a parole review just prior to tariff expiry and then at a minimum, every two years thereafter. HMPPS sets the period between reviews, and offenders are referred every 12 to 24 months after their first review depending on the outstanding risk reduction work that the offender needs to complete.

Once a case has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, the conduct of the review process and the scheduling of hearings is entirely a matter for the Board. The Parole Board has made efforts to improve timeliness and a number of measures have been implemented to improve throughput and reduce delays. These include the introduction of temporary fee uplifts, targeted recruitment campaigns, and the delegation of certain case management functions to secretariat staff.

The Board’s published Annual Review and Account for 2024/25 reports that despite making more individual decisions than the previous year, the number of cases waiting for paper decisions and or oral hearings have both fallen. The Department continues to monitor performance closely and remains committed to supporting the Parole Board in meeting its statutory obligations whilst maintaining public protection.

We have interpreted the reference to an ‘18-month review cycle’ to be the frequency that cases are referred to the Parole Board and the review cycle varies depending on the type of sentence being served. Standard Determinate Sentence prisoners who have been recalled are referred to the Board within 28 days of their recall and then every 12 months. Indeterminate sentence prisoners must have a parole review just prior to tariff expiry and then at a minimum, every two years thereafter. HMPPS sets the period between reviews, and offenders are referred every 12 to 24 months after their first review depending on the outstanding risk reduction work that the offender needs to complete.

Once a case has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, the conduct of the review process and the scheduling of hearings is entirely a matter for the Board. The Parole Board has made efforts to improve timeliness and a number of measures have been implemented to improve throughput and reduce delays. These include the introduction of temporary fee uplifts, targeted recruitment campaigns, and the delegation of certain case management functions to secretariat staff.

The Board’s published Annual Review and Account for 2024/25 reports that despite making more individual decisions than the previous year, the number of cases waiting for paper decisions and or oral hearings have both fallen. The Department continues to monitor performance closely and remains committed to supporting the Parole Board in meeting its statutory obligations whilst maintaining public protection.

On 30 June 2025, the latest date for which we can provide data from published statistics, there were 170 women in prison, having been released on licence, who had been recalled to prison and had served less than 4 weeks in custody and, similarly, 44 who had served 4-8 weeks in custody, out of a total of 517 women in the recall population.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.

Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.

We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.

Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.

Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.

We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.

Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.

Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.

We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.

Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

The number of women who were not sentenced after being remanded in custody in the latest year available, year ending June 2025, can be found in the table below:

Table: The number of women who were not sentenced after being remanded in custody at the magistrates’ court and Crown Court, year ending June 2025

Notes:

• The number of defendants not sentenced refers to cases discontinued or discharged, charges withdrawn or dismissed, acquittals and other disposals without conviction.

• Figures for magistrates’ courts exclude cases committed to Crown Court for trial and sentencing.

• Defendants are reported against their most serious remand status. All hearings except for sentence hearing are considered and ranked with custody as most serious, then bail and then not remanded or not applicable. A defendant’s remand status may change several times throughout their court journey, however what we report only reflects the most serious status they received in that set period and does not reflect the number of remand decisions made in those periods.

• These figures are presented on a principal offence and principal disposal sentence – i.e. reporting information relating to the most serious offence that a defendant was dealt with for and the most severe sentence issued for the offence.

• Further important caveats are found in the ‘Notes’ tab of the data source "Remands data tool: June 2025 which is available through the following link: Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: June 2025 - GOV.UK

Information relating to women who were remanded in custody and were released having served the length of their sentence on remand is not centrally held by the Ministry of Justice.

Victims’ participation in parole is managed through the Victim Contact Scheme run by HMPPS. Victims can submit a Victim Personal Statement to the Parole Board explaining the effect that the crime has had on them and their family. They can also make representations, which may inform the Parole Board’s consideration of licence conditions, should release be directed. Additionally, victims can also apply to observe a Parole Board oral hearing to see how parole panels assess the offender’s risk.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the codified public protection test, which requires the Parole Board to have particular regard to the protection of the victim when considering release. Other measures in the Act, once implemented, will ensure victims know about their rights under the Victims’ Code and that these entitlements are met by criminal justice agencies, as well as driving more strategic commissioning through the Duty to Collaborate.

The Parole Board applies a statutory test when determining whether to release an offender. The test requires the Board to be satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender remain confined. The test was codified in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, following the Ministry of Justice’s Root and Branch Review of the parole system, published in March 2022. The review assessed the system as a whole, including how risk is assessed in cases involving serious violent and sexual offenders, and led to reforms that strengthened statutory safeguards and public protection measures.

The Parole Board does not manage risk following the release of offenders. Where release is directed, responsibility for managing risk lies with probation services, who develop and implement robust supervision plans tailored to the individual’s risk profile. The Parole Board will only direct release if it is satisfied that the release plan is sufficient to safely manage the offender in the community.

Qualified prison and probation officers, together with qualified psychologists, assess the relevance of all available evidence about a prisoner’s risk in the reports which they are required to submit to the Parole Board, when the Board is considering whether to direct that prisoner’s release. This includes evidence about behaviour, both past and present, and any intelligence gathered.

Additionally, the Parole Board may direct production of other reports where they, or other report writers, consider it necessary to inform the Board’s assessment of the prisoner’s risk – for example, a report from a qualified forensic psychiatrist.

Public protection remains the number one priority, and the Parole Board will release a prisoner only where it judges that the Probation Service may manage the prisoner’s risk effectively, using the licence conditions which the Board itself sets.

Parole Board members receive training in risk assessment that covers interpreting professional evaluations and assessing written and oral evidence to decide if statutory release criteria are satisfied.

The Parole Board, as an independent body, is responsible for developing and delivering its own training programmes.

The Ministry of Justice is confident that the training provided on assessing the risk of reoffending is robust.

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe. On 10 September 2024, the Government therefore took the unavoidable step to move the release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40% (‘SDS40’).

We have published SDS40 release data alongside the quarterly Offender Management Statistics, in line with the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to transparency.

Please find statistics on overall prison population nationality here: Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2024 - GOV.UK.

Please find statistics on SDS40 release nationality here: Standard Determinate Sentence 40 (SDS40) : September 2024 to March 2025 - GOV.UK.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we’re clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again

Totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025 - GOV.UK, and provide data up to March 2025.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we’re clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again.

The Ministry of Justice publishes annual data on prisoners released in error in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest available via HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025 - GOV.UK.

These figures can be found under Chapter 1 Tables – Escape data tool; showing data up to March 2025.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is a non-departmental body, established by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing. The primary role of the Council is to issue guidelines on sentencing, which the Courts must follow, unless it is in the interests of justice not to.

The Council’s ‘Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences’ guideline sets out the guidance that sentencers must follow when imposing community orders and custodial sentences, including deciding whether a custodial sentence can be suspended. It provides more detail as to the sorts of community requirements available under community orders and suspended sentence orders. This overarching guideline applies across England and Wales – the Council does not produce guidelines that are specific to a geographic location. The guideline can be found online at the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences/.

We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.

Time spent on communication with the LAA on specific cases is generally claimable at hourly rates, subject to the provisions of the relevant Contract and the LAA’s published Cost Assessment Guidance.

There is a pre-existing route for making claims for compensation, details of which are on gov.uk. We do not plan to put in place a separate compensation route specific to this incident. Providers will be paid for the work undertaken on legal aid cases in the relevant period.

Our judges swear an oath to act "without fear or favour, affection or ill will". Judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them, applying the law as it stands.

To uphold the important principle of judicial independence that is a cornerstone of the UK constitution, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) can only consider complaints about the personal behaviour of a judge. Allegations of bias or unfairness in a judge’s decision or case management must be addressed through the appeals process.

The JCIO does not collect or report details of the type of proceedings that are being complained about. Its annual reports includes information about the number and subject matter of complaints received (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/reportsandpublications/).

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the system for commissioning pathologists to undertake post-mortems for coroners needs to function effectively to help coroners determine causes of death and meet the needs of bereaved families. Ministry of Justice officials are working closely with other government departments and wider stakeholders in the pathology sector, to understand the issues for the coronial pathology workforce and those of the wider system.

The Ministry of Justice has recently undertaken a data-gathering exercise intended to better-understand the profile of this workforce. We will continue to work across Whitehall and with external stakeholders to ensure that there is a secure number of pathologists ready to undertake this vital work for coroners and ensure the needs of bereaved families are met.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring that victims of rape and sexual violence are supported throughout their engagement with the criminal justice system, regardless of where they live. Across the country, every Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) area now has at least two dedicated Victim Liaison Officer in its rape and serious sexual offences unit. Pre-trial meetings are offered to all adult victims of these crimes, and the CPS have also delivered trauma-informed training to staff as part of their Victims’ Programme. The Ministry of Justice funded Witness Service also provides on-the-day emotional and practical support to victims who are witnesses.

This year, we have protected dedicated Ministry of Justice Violence Against Women and Girls victims spending, maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support services in every Police and Crime Commissioner area. This also includes the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, which provides funding to over 60 specialist support organisations, including in the North East.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

The majority of applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA needs to get information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

In the financial year 2024-25, the average time to make a decision was 370 days*.

The following table** shows the number of applications awaiting a first decision for more than 12, 18 and 24 months as at 31 March 2025.

* This figure is based on cases that were decided in 2024-25. The applications may have been received in earlier years.

**The table does not include applications deferred under paragraph 98 of the 2012 Scheme.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

The majority of applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA needs to get information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

In the financial year 2024-25, the average time to make a decision was 370 days*.

The following table** shows the number of applications awaiting a first decision for more than 12, 18 and 24 months as at 31 March 2025.

* This figure is based on cases that were decided in 2024-25. The applications may have been received in earlier years.

**The table does not include applications deferred under paragraph 98 of the 2012 Scheme.

The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, including community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services, in addition to core funding for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.

For the 2025/2026 financial year, funding for services supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence has been protected at 2024/2025 levels. While there has been a modest reduction to the core funding provided to PCCs, the Department has consolidated previous ringfenced grants into a single funding stream, enabling greater flexibility for local areas to address specific needs. In 2023/2024 over 1.5 million victims were supported through the services commissioned by PCCs.

The Department continues to work closely with local partners to ensure funding is targeted effectively and is focused on delivering its commitments to repairing and strengthening the justice system, so that victims can receive swift access to justice. Funding after March 2026 will be agreed through the allocations process which follows on the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

This Government was elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within the decade, and ensuring support is available for all victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse is an absolute priority. The new cross-Government strategy, setting out the strategic direction and concrete actions to deliver on the Government’s VAWG ambition, will be published later this year.

I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year. This includes the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) grant for specialist sexual violence services and the ringfenced domestic and sexual abuse support funding for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). PCCs are best placed to understand their local communities and providers, and to commission appropriate support services to meet the need of victims in their area, including those affected by sexual violence or domestic abuse. PCCs and RASASF grant recipients carry out local needs assessments to identify the unique needs of victims in their area and design and deliver services accordingly.

The Ministry of Justice funded 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line offers victims, aged 16 and over, access to free and confidential emotional support whenever they need it. Where appropriate, the service will also signpost victims to longer-term support services, such as therapeutic support.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog which has created unacceptable delays meaning victims are waiting too long for justice. This is why this Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims. We know how important support services are in keeping victims engaged and supported through the Criminal Justice process, particularly with regards to delays in their case. The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, in addition to core funding for Police and Crime Commissioners to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.

This Government is committed to ensuring victims have the information they need. The Victims’ Code is statutory guidance that sets out the minimum level of service that victims of crime should receive from the criminal justice system. Under the Code, victims have the right to information when reporting the crime, during investigation and prosecution, during the trial, and at the outcome of the trial.

We will be consulting on a new Code in due course to make sure we get the foundations for victims right. We are also taking steps through the Victims and Courts Bill to provide all victims with a clear route to request information about their offender, where they receive a custodial sentence.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog which has created unacceptable delays meaning victims are waiting too long for justice. This is why this Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims. We know how important support services are in keeping victims engaged and supported through the Criminal Justice process, particularly with regards to delays in their case. The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, in addition to core funding for Police and Crime Commissioners to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.

This Government is committed to ensuring victims have the information they need. The Victims’ Code is statutory guidance that sets out the minimum level of service that victims of crime should receive from the criminal justice system. Under the Code, victims have the right to information when reporting the crime, during investigation and prosecution, during the trial, and at the outcome of the trial.

We will be consulting on a new Code in due course to make sure we get the foundations for victims right. We are also taking steps through the Victims and Courts Bill to provide all victims with a clear route to request information about their offender, where they receive a custodial sentence.

At the conclusion of an inquest or if it is suspended pending the conclusion of proceedings associated with the death the coroner certifies the cause of death for the purposes of registration. The registration of the death itself is carried out by the Registrar.

The Ministry of Justice publishes annual Coroners Statistics which can be found at Coroners statistics 2024 - GOV.UK

The information requested on the number and proportion of unissued final death certificates for the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner area and nationally is not collected but comparable data is available in, or can be extrapolated from, these statistical publications.

At the conclusion of an inquest or if it is suspended pending the conclusion of proceedings associated with the death the coroner certifies the cause of death for the purposes of registration. The registration of the death itself is carried out by the Registrar.

The Ministry of Justice publishes annual Coroners Statistics which can be found at Coroners statistics 2024 - GOV.UK

The information requested on the number and proportion of unissued final death certificates for the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner area and nationally is not collected but comparable data is available in, or can be extrapolated from, these statistical publications.